Roberts v. Miami-Dade State Attorneys Office et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #18 Report and Recommendations. The Court dismisses the Complaint with prejudice (DE #1 ) and directs the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 4/13/2017. (mc)

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Solomon Roberts, Plaintiff
v.
Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office
and others, Defendants.

)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 17-20292-Civ-Scola
)
)

Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendation
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick A.
White, consistent with Administrative Order 2003-19 of this Court, for a ruling
on all pre-trial, nondispositive matters and for a report and recommendation
on any dispositive matters. The Complaint asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On March 3, 2017, Judge White issued a report,
recommending that, upon initial screening in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the Court dismiss the Complaint without leave to amend. (Report of
Magistrate, ECF No. 18.) The Plaintiff has filed objections to the report. (Pl’s
Objections, ECF No 19.)
The Court has considered Judge White’s report, the Petitioner’s
objections, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. The Court finds Judge
White’s report and recommendation cogent and compelling. The Plaintiff’s
objections primarily address the substantive allegations set forth in the
Complaint, rather than Judge White’s conclusion that the Complaint is barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), which held that when an
inmate’s allegations rest on the invalidity of his imprisonment, his civil rights
claim does not accrue until that invalidity is proven.
The Plaintiff also asserts that Judge White’s conclusion that Assistant
State Attorneys Komeily and Snyder are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits
relating to activities that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the
criminal process is “dead wrong.” (Pl’s Objections at 8, ECF No 19.) In support
of this assertion, the Plaintiff cites to cases that he argues hold that
government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when they perform
discretionary functions. (Id. at 7.) However, the cases to which the Plaintiff
cites involved advisers to the President of the United States, members of a
Secret Service protective detail, and an FBI agent. See Reichle v. Howards, 132
S. Ct. 2088, 2091 (2012); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 637 (1987);
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 802 (1982). These cases are inapplicable to

this matter, which involves allegations of misconduct by two Assistant State
Attorneys during the course of a judicial proceeding. (Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 1.)
Since the Plaintiff’s allegations concern conduct by prosecutors during the
course of a judicial proceeding, they are entitled to absolute immunity. See,
e.g., Hart v. Hodges, 587 F.3d 1288, 1295 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that the
Eleventh Circuit has “emphasized that ‘[a] prosecutor enjoys absolute
immunity from allegation stemming from the prosecutor’s function as
advocate.’”) (citations omitted).
In addition to the objections, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
submit additional authority (ECF No. 20). The motion requests a hearing on the
merits of the Complaint. (Id. at 2.) However, since the Complaint is barred by
Heck v. Humphrey and because the Assistant State Attorneys named in the
Complaint are absolutely immune from suit, the Court denies the Plaintiff’s
motion (ECF No. 20).
Accordingly, the Court affirms and adopts Judge White’s report and
recommendation (ECF No. 18). The Court dismisses the Complaint with
prejudice (ECF No. 1) and directs the Clerk to close this case.
Done and ordered, at Miami, Florida, on April 13, 2017.
_______________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge